Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Supreme Court backs decision to jail reporters for protecting source

Andrew Buncombe
Monday 27 June 2005 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Two reporters who have refused to name a confidential source face jail after the Supreme Court refused to hear their claim that journalists should be afforded special protections.

Without making any comment, the court allowed to let stand a lower court's ruling that the two reporters should be jailed and held in contempt of court for refusing to testify.

The case relates to the outing of the CIA operative Valeria Plame, the wife of a former US ambassador Joe Wilson. Her identity was leaked in 2003 by a Bush administration official in retaliation for Mr Wilson's public claim that the government had lied about Iraq's efforts to restart its nuclear programme.

After her identity was leaked - a federal offence - an investigation was launched by the Justice Department. It sought to speak to all the journalists who had spoken to the government official, including the conservative columnist Robert Novak, who had published the information.

Ironically, though the New York Times correspondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper had talked to sources about the Plame story, neither had anything to do with leaking her identity. They both refused to co-operate with the grand jury investigation into the leak, claiming it would be wrong to reveal a confidential source.

A federal judge had ordered that as a result of their refusal, Mr Cooper and Ms Miller should be jailed for 18 months. Time magazine was also fined $1,000 a day until it complied with the court order.

Meanwhile, addressing the emotive issue of separation of church and state in the US yesterday, a divided Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could be displayed on government land, but not inside a federal courthouse.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in